FPW

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I thought the accounts states Prussians advanced with two battalions in skirmish and one formed. But I am often wrong.
French deployed in line for maximum firepower.
Guess frontage would be roughly equal, but Chad, Cameronian and Mollinary will give you exact numbers I'm sure.

[Westmarcher]

Lemmey's right in that Leman, Mollinary et alia will definitely keep you right, there.

However, as you know, a table top war games unit is basically an abstraction of the real thing - the figures are way too large, there is not enough of them (unless you're mad enough to form the unit on a 1:1 scale), the unit footprint in line is usually too deep and, due to losses and detachments, every unit does not have the exact same strength in men.

Therefore, like many war-games rules, another option is to push that abstraction further and standardise your unit sizes regardless of nationality, regarding each unit's footprint on the table as not representing the exact area but the general area occupied by that unit regardless of actual strength (within certain parameters, of course). This can make life a lot simpler when it comes to basing.

[Ray Rivers]

Understood.

I would like to model the asymmetrical forces, though perhaps that is not possible.

I understand the Prussians fought 3 lines deep, with the first line in skirmish formation. So I could use a 30x40 base, place 2 guys up front skirmishing with a double line of 6 behind. That would give me the 8 guys I need per battalion (as opposed to the 6 for the French). Three battalions thus represent 1,000 men and keep the frontage the same for both armies.

Ideas? Comments? Recommendations?

Ears wide open! 

[mollinary]

Hi Ray,

Not sure where you got your numbers for battalions and regiments from, but they are far too small. Prussian battalions at full strength would be 1,000 strong, and even after some time on campaign would often number some 750 men.  For example the Prussian 38th Brigade at Mars-la-Tour numbered some 4,644, or nearly 800 men per battalion.  French regiments were smaller, but battalions in the field would often number some 500. As far as tactics, there is, I am afraid, little standardisation. The Prussians were in the middle of a battle between those who emphasised the company as the main tactical unit, and those (usually field officers) who wanted to retain control at battalion level. The latter wanted to keep a half battalion column behind the firing line, under their personal command, ready to intervene with the Bayonet at the crucial point. The former would often support the whole battalion deploying into a loose firing line, which would search for the flanks of any enemy unit and erode it with fire. In the end, the superior range of the chassepot often drove the Prussians to ground before either of these systems could work, and the Prussians had to rely on their superior numbers of guns to suppress the static French.  Sorry this is a bit rushed, but the subject is vast, and complex!

[Ray Rivers]

Okay, you're right. Let's start again. General speaking...

The French had battalions of roughly 750 men giving a regiment of 3 battalions roughly 2250 troops.

The Prussians had battalions of roughly 1000 men giving a regiment of 3 battalions roughly 3000 troops.

Is that roughly correct?

My French regiments have 3 bases of 6 men, each representing a battalion (125 to 1). The frontage is 30mm.

At 125 to 1 a Prussian battalion would be 8 figures. The problem is how do I represent a Prussian battalion?

Should I use a frontage of 40mm in 2 lines? Should I use a frontage of 30mm and put 4 men per line? Or should I put 3 lines on a 30mm front and 40mm depth?

[Ithoriel]

For me, the answer is ... it depends.

I decide what rules I'll be using and work from there.

Starting from the nominal strengths would be my last resort. Battalions in any war for any army are rarely at TO&E strength. A few may be over strength, most will be under and a few more will be well under. Research suggests comparatively few people in any formation are actively trying to kill the enemy. A small number of men tend to inflict most of the casualties.

So unless the amount of ground a unit covered was a significant factor I'm not convinced size of base matters so much as consistency of representation but the rules you use may beg to differ!

Most of the rules I use these days specify base width but are less concerned with depth so 8 figures on a 30x40 might be the way to go. But I still say, find a set of rules you like and be guided by them.

Whatever basing you choose, I am sure they will be beautifully painted!

[Nick the Lemming]

Most of the rules I use these days specify base width but are less concerned with depth so 8 figures on a 30x40 might be the way to go. But I still say, find a set of rules you like and be guided by them.

This. Unless you already have a set of rules in mind that require 3 bases per battalion, I'd recommend finding the right rules for you first, then using whatever basing they recommend. If they're handwavey about basing, then pick something that looks good, and stick with that, or if you're likely to be playing with some other local gamers, chat to them and see what they use or would prefer to use if they're going to start on their own armies too.

My preference for FPW is Bloody Big Battles, which suggests 1" (or up to 1 1/2")  bases, though a lot of people (especially with 10mm) use 30mm. The number of bases varies by unit depending on strength, so rather than picking a fixed ratio of figures to numbers, there's more of a ratio of bases to numbers, and you can put as many or as few figures to a base as you like. Frontages and depths are always an abstraction in any wargame, and frequently don't match up (especially depth - most wargaming units would need to be about 1-2mm), so don't worry too much about tryng to make them work, when a perfectly good game can be had by using a varying amount of bases to represent a unit's strength. 

[Leman]

I favour Nick's approach above. My favoured rules are BBB, available from Caliver, for the large battles, where the number of bases represents the strength of  a brigade or division. I also use Field of Battle, where all infantry and cavalry units are four bases strong, but their unit ratings vary depending on strength/training/morale etc. This set works well for a batallion level game. Another option is 1871 by Bruce Weigle, available from Caliver,  (which also includes some 1870 scenarios). These are a streamlined version of his 1870 rules (which also includes some 1871 scenarios) . The approach here is  one 30mm wide base per battalion for both sides. The units are therefore rather abstract. Furthermore the scale often requires tables upwards of 8 feet long, consequently I tend to use either the smaller scenarios or fight parts of a battle. I also use 25mm square bases for all infantry and cavalry in 10mm. If you are looking to have a visual representation of the units on the tabletop I would suggest the older style rules such as They Died For Glory or Les Gens Braves, both available from Caliver.

Incidentally the 1870 rules contain a wealth of information on the FPW armies, as well as the rules and scenarios. There is also a substantial bibliography. 1871 also includes a very comprehensive bibliography. Helion publishers is also an excellent source of books and pamphlets on the Franco-Prussian War, and the preceding wars of German unification.

[Ray Rivers]

Thank you all very much for your thoughts. That was exactly the information I needed.

I have been going back and forth between BBBs and 1870/1871 and it appears that you have solved my dilemma. I much prefer the presentation used by BBBs, so I shall go and get them. Having said that, 1870 also appears worth getting, so I shall buy those as well.

Once again, thanks! 

[Leman]

Happy to be of help Ray.

Andy

[John Cook]

You seem, to me, to be putting cart before horse and I agree that you need to decide now what rules you intend to use, and be guided by them, otherwise you may find yourself having to adapt your stands to the rules you choose later.

Stands are no more than 'counters' when it comes down to it and the number of figures on a stand is not as important as the frontage the stand is supposed to represent.  The only way you can arrive at that is by knowing what the ground scale is in the first place.   

A stand ought to reflect something approximating to the width of a file (the frontage occupied by a single soldier) multiplied by the number of files it represents.

This is my approach with every period from the Norman Invasion to the American Civil War.

[Ray Rivers]

It's no big deal mate.

If I game with these it will probably be by myself. No gaming groups where I live.

I love painting miniatures and have for a long time. I find it very relaxing, which allows me to approach real life problems in a more stable and fresh manner.

Don't get me wrong. I love gaming and I want the stuff that I do to be representative of the war that they fought in. But at this point in my life, gaming is just not a priority... unlike, for example, my grand son.

[Leman]

Have to agree. Seen too much angst over the past 50 years concerning frontage, depth. how many buttons on X uniform. Very iimportant if you are in charge of Trooping the Colour, otherwise nah.....not for just playthings.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Its all good.

[John Cook]

Have to agree. Seen too much angst over the past 50 years concerning frontage, depth. how many buttons on X uniform. Very iimportant if you are in charge of Trooping the Colour, otherwise nah.....not for just playthings.

Couldn't agree less.  1 Corinthians 13.